Anthropological Research on Whaling : Prehistoric, Historic and Current Contexts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The prehistory and history of whaling is first summarized.This includes a review of archaeological approaches to prehistoric whaling.Next, whaling is situated within the current international political climate vis-à-vis the International Whaling Commission and the 'whaling problem'.To establish the context for the papers that follow, we present an extended essay on Japanese contributions to both the anthropology of whaling and the current international discourse on the 'whaling problem'.The three most impressive petroglyph examples are the Bangu-dae archeological site near Ulsan, in southeast Korea (Nelson 1993), the series of sites near Alta, Norway (Helskog 2004), and the series of sites bordering the White Sea in the Belomorski District of Russia (Lobanova 1995(Lobanova , 2007)).All these depict whales or dolphins, boats, and/or apparent whale hunting scenes, and have been suggested to date to approximately 8000, 6000, and 5000 years B. P., respectively.Unfortunately, an inherent problem in accepting such early evidence of active as opposed to opportunistic whaling is that none of these depictions have been dated directly.Instead, the dates are based on the probable dates of associated prehistoric settlements that investigators link to the petroglyphs.Given that in most such cases associated settlements or settlement complexes span several millennia (at the Alta sites, for example, associated sites span the period 6000 to 2500 B. P.), these do not constitute unequivocal evidence for the earliest active whaling societies.Evidence for active whale hunting, although still sometimes problematical, generally rests on more robust evidence.Glassow (2005), for example, presents convincing evidence of dolphin hunting at the Punta Arena site on Santa Cruz Island, California, between approximately 6300-5300 B. P., based primarily on the changing relative abundance of dolphin remains (and thus changing importance in the diet) through a stratigraphic sequence.Although the material came from two small test excavations (0.25 x 1.5 m each), if the interpretations are confirmed by additional research, this would represent the earliest active whale hunting known anywhere in the world.Otherwise, the earliest sites with strong evidence for active whale or dolphin hunting are concentrated primarily in the North Pacific Rim and adjacent Arctic regions.At the Early Jomon Mawaki site on the Noto Peninsula, Japan, which has been securely dated to approximately 5000 years B. P. (Hiraguchi 2002;Itoh et al. 2011), the remains of at least 286 dolphins have been found in one stratum associated with a village and ceremonial complex, and are presumably the result of a drive hunt(s).At this site there is evidence of ritual treatment of the dolphin remains, and associated features and artifacts all indicate a mixed maritime/terrestrial diet.Elsewhere in the Pacific Rim, a whaling scene incised on walrus ivory recovered from a dwelling at the Un'en'en site on the Chokotka Peninsula, Russia, was found beneath the collapsed roof of a dwelling dating to approximately 3000 B. P. (Odess et al. 2008).The scene includes an illustration of men in umiaks (large open skin boats) harpooning large baleen whales, which suggests a sophisticated whaling adaptation presumably targeting bowhead and gray whales.Archaeological sites on Vancouver Island, Canada, have also yielded strong evidence of whaling, possibly as early as 3000 B. P. (Dewhirst 1980(Dewhirst , 1982;; Monks 2001: 137).Although both the Punta Arena and Mawaki sites seem to represent active and possibly low-level logistically-organized hunting, continuation of such hunting in their respective areas (California and Japan) is sporadic.However, this may be a result more of the patchiness of the archaeological record than a cessation of such activities per se.Whaling, primarily dolphin hunting, apparently continued throughout Japan following its initial appearance in Early Jomon (Hiraguchi 1991(Hiraguchi , 1992(Hiraguchi , 2003a(Hiraguchi , 2003b(Hiraguchi , 2004(Hiraguchi , 2009;;Tatehira 2003).It is certain that by approximately 1500 B. P. active whaling had become
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».